4 hours ago, Malasombra said:Yup. But, if they are rag-tag rebels doesn't feel more like having everything that can fly and shoot?
To me, it just seems a bit forced uniformity...
You also have to add in the idea of maintenance. If you have a bunch of different classes of ships, you will start running into the need for specific parts that one ship needs, but no one else. Having a uniform Squadron means a uniform maintenance schedule and parts needed for said maintenance.
notice how trajectory simulator is toping tournament lists with op sillyness and it comes with the most expensive ship in the wave?
i see you FFG
4 hours ago, SabineKey said:You also have to add in the idea of maintenance. If you have a bunch of different classes of ships, you will start running into the need for specific parts that one ship needs, but no one else. Having a uniform Squadron means a uniform maintenance schedule and parts needed for said maintenance.
Uniform SQUADRON and uniform WING are two different matters.
12 minutes ago, Ambaryerno said:Uniform SQUADRON and uniform WING are two different matters.
Care to elaborate?
7 minutes ago, SabineKey said:Care to elaborate?
A wing (or group, depending on the service) comprises multiple squadrons, which will often have different roles and thus field different aircraft.
4 minutes ago, Ambaryerno said:A wing (or group, depending on the service) comprises multiple squadrons, which will often have different roles and thus field different aircraft.
Ah, I was unclear if you were referring to the group term or talking about ships themselves.
You are correct. When you start getting into multiple squadrons, things get can get more diverse. But in that diversity is another form of uniformity. In the battle of Endor, the Rebels fielded four types of starfighters. If you have a strong infrastructure, having the equipment and parts to keep those ships running is fine. But as the number of different ship models go up, the difficulty of ensuring you can keep them all running goes up.
On 1/14/2018 at 0:29 AM, Ambaryerno said:Regardless, I'm sure we can agree that calling the action a "Barrel Roll" and then restricting it to certain ships is arbitrary and illogical (or at the very least demonstrates that whoever came up with the nomenclature had no clue themselves what a barrel roll actually was) and that it SHOULD have been given a different and more indicative name that better fits the mechanic altogether. I mean we've already got fictional names for the K-Turn, S-Loop, and T-Roll, no reason they couldn't have come up with something for this to set it apart from IRL maneuvers that it in no way resembles.
Dude it's for gameplay reasons.
On 1/15/2018 at 8:37 PM, LordBlades said:My base assumption is that FFG wants equal or higher profit. Let's assume FFG currently makes 50% profit. They sell you a 10$ ship, they make 5$. Let's also assume for every ship.you field you need to buy 3, the ship you want and 2 for must-have cards. Therefore, FFG is making 15$ for every ship you are fielding.
Now let's assume FFG does what you suggest. The ships are now cheaper to produce, let's say 4$, however, you only need to buy the ship you are fielding. As such, in order to preserve their 15$ profit off you, they need to sell you the 10$ ship at 4+15=19$.
The numbers are obviously made up (I don't know FFGs cost and profit margins), but you get the idea.
You did not include the sale of the upgrade cards when factoring in the cost of ships.
6 minutes ago, Rexler Brath said:You did not include the sale of the upgrade cards when factoring in the cost of ships.
It was left out intentionally to simplify. The principle still stands regardless: with the actual model FFG sells you 3 ships+cards. With your proposed model, FFG sells you 1 ship+cards. Assuming roughly equal number of cards (otherwise you're just shifting the problem from buying multiple ships to buying multiple card packs) FFG actually sells you less stuff. In order to make equal or more profit, each item will need to have a higher profit margin and therefore be individually more expensive.
1 minute ago, LordBlades said:It was left out intentionally to simplify. The principle still stands regardless: with the actual model FFG sells you 3 ships+cards. With your proposed model, FFG sells you 1 ship+cards. Assuming roughly equal number of cards (otherwise you're just shifting the problem from buying multiple ships to buying multiple card packs) FFG actually sells you less stuff. In order to make equal or more profit, each item will need to have a higher profit margin and therefore be individually more expensive.
I fundamentally disagree. The idea is that FFG would sell a significant amount MORE upgrade cards than ships. Upgrade cards are much cheaper to produce (manufacturer and distribute). There is ZERO reason FFG would need to increase the price of ships because the ships themselves would be cheaper to produce. I think FFG could either leave the price as it stands or reduce the price.
7 hours ago, Rexler Brath said:I fundamentally disagree. The idea is that FFG would sell a significant amount MORE upgrade cards than ships. Upgrade cards are much cheaper to produce (manufacturer and distribute). There is ZERO reason FFG would need to increase the price of ships because the ships themselves would be cheaper to produce. I think FFG could either leave the price as it stands or reduce the price.
So you're NOT ok with buying multiple ships to get the cards you need but you'd be ok with buying significantly more card packs?
On 1/15/2018 at 5:13 PM, SabineKey said:Care to elaborate?
a squadron is sort of like a company, where a wing is sort of like a battalion.
so a squadron might be all interceptors, while a wing might be a bomber group comprised of bombers with supporting craft like fighters.
15 hours ago, LordBlades said:So you're NOT ok with buying multiple ships to get the cards you need but you'd be ok with buying significantly more card packs?
I suspect his assumption is the card packs will be way less expensive than a current expansion pack model. A dangerous assumption indeed.
On 1/12/2018 at 1:18 AM, Giledhil said:Because FFG needs you to buy that ugly big ship from an awful movie.
Similar to the K-Wing and the Punisher, which were "FFG needs you to buy that big ugly ship from that obscure EU thing."
23 hours ago, LordBlades said:It was left out intentionally to simplify. The principle still stands regardless: with the actual model FFG sells you 3 ships+cards. With your proposed model, FFG sells you 1 ship+cards. Assuming roughly equal number of cards (otherwise you're just shifting the problem from buying multiple ships to buying multiple card packs) FFG actually sells you less stuff. In order to make equal or more profit, each item will need to have a higher profit margin and therefore be individually more expensive.
It just sells different stuff. Without seeing any of their market research or analytics, it's difficult to tell. But the potential exists that ship packs aren't sold because the price point is above the perceived value for some segments of customers. My friends and I don't play competitively, so have no need to buy enough ships to have physical copies of every card. I imagine many players are the same way. Thus there is no lost profits for FFG. We're not customers for those products, period. If FFG makes a product we want (card upgrade packs), the profit margin only has to meet their benchmark, because any profit is higher than 0.
The only question is whether or not FFG believes their customer data suggests that selling cards would impact ship sales. Profit margins for cardstock are ridiculously high. Why do you think CCGs are so popular for game companies? Realistically, lots of games function on a product plan is based on selling the rules in one place, and the models in another. So it isn't like there's no precedent for it. FFG's is simply not customer-friendly as their profit model is based on selling the customer things they don't want so that they can get things they perceive they need. The only reason it exists is that gamers are often dumb enough to think this is okay. For all the flak companies like Games Workshop get, at least they've always let the customer decide what they want to buy.
10 minutes ago, TheVeteranSergeant said:Similar to the K-Wing and the Punisher, which were "FFG needs you to buy that big ugly ship from that obscure EU thing."
I have 2 Punishers for the MCK II engines and Extra Munitions for epic. That's pretty much the only reason I have the ship (although I do want to try the Deathrain build w/UGR, Bomblet, AS, and LWF).
10 minutes ago, TheVeteranSergeant said:Similar to the K-Wing and the Punisher, which were "FFG needs you to buy that big ugly ship from that obscure EU thing."
Never was a fan of comic books, so yeah, K-wing seems as much non-StarWars-y as you can get.
I would rather have a way to use Y-wings correctly as bombers (which we can almost do now with FAA + action bombs, it's a neat trick
)
15 hours ago, LordBlades said:So you're NOT ok with buying multiple ships to get the cards you need but you'd be ok with buying significantly more card packs?
i would. spending 10 bucks vs 200 bucks seems favorable. personally i dont buy ships just for cards
not to mention most of us just use squad building apps anyway, so ffg isnt making any money from many players for cards at all. FFG would make more money selling cards in standalone packs
The K-Wing design is just awful in general. Its dorsal turret is obstructed across a massive amount of its potential firing arcs, creating an absurd amount of dead space for an enemy fighter to occupy. The thought that any ship designer would have placed a turret below the plane of the rear wing in that manner is hilarious.
Thought of cutting one up to make a more sensible model, but then I realized that would have involved buying a K-Wing.
41 minutes ago, TheVeteranSergeant said:The K-Wing design is just awful in general. Its dorsal turret is obstructed across a massive amount of its potential firing arcs, creating an absurd amount of dead space for an enemy fighter to occupy. The thought that any ship designer would have placed a turret below the plane of the rear wing in that manner is hilarious.
Thought of cutting one up to make a more sensible model, but then I realized that would have involved buying a K-Wing.
I'm working on a new K-wing model that ACTUALLY MATCHES THE ORIGINAL DESCRIPTION.
4 hours ago, TheVeteranSergeant said:The K-Wing design is just awful in general. Its dorsal turret is obstructed across a massive amount of its potential firing arcs, creating an absurd amount of dead space for an enemy fighter to occupy. The thought that any ship designer would have placed a turret below the plane of the rear wing in that manner is hilarious.
Thought of cutting one up to make a more sensible model, but then I realized that would have involved buying a K-Wing.
And the fact it's the only ship with exposed ordnance...
5 hours ago, Vontoothskie said:a squadron is sort of like a company, where a wing is sort of like a battalion.
so a squadron might be all interceptors, while a wing might be a bomber group comprised of bombers with supporting craft like fighters.
@Ambaryerno clarified. I knew the term, but with the so many ships with "wing" in the name, I wanted to make sure.